Finally, Marleen Durfee has prevailed. The peppy, fast-talking, middle-aged woman is seeing what she warned about becoming reality and looks forward to a brighter day. For most of this decade, the Pennsylvania native has harangued the Chesterfield Board of Supervisors about their mindlessly pro-growth development policies. And now, the turkeys have come home to roost. We met for a story I wrote for Richmond's Style Weekly about how a perfect storm of extremely tight financing, bad planning and steadily shifting demographics is starting to make profound changes in how suburban growth is emerging in the Capital area, if not in the rest of the country.
Huge megaprojects such as the 4,600 house Branner Station project in eastern Chesterfield have come to an abrupt halt. Three more in eastern Henrico are delayed, as is the Roseland megaproject in western Chesterfield.
The icing on the cake, however, is Magnolia Green, a southwestern Chesterfield megaproject on the books for 20 years. The project which would project more exurbia mess even farther down the crowded Hull Street corridor struck financing shoals. When an auction was held last month to sell off a half-built golf course and lots for most of the project's 4,886 homes, there were no bidders. About three dozen or so homes have been built in piney woods of unbuilt roads and unpoured concrete.
Since 2000, Durfee has acted as a self-styled watchdog on out of control growth. "Residential is a big drain on society and the board of supervisors didn't understand this. They thought that building more homes paid for itself," she told me in a restaurant's outdoor patio.
Durfee had been a professional activist against drunk driving and worked in Pennsylvania and Lousiana before moving to Chesterfield County in 1986. She used some of her experience in her field on growth policies when she realized was was happening with Chesterfield. "There used to be 20 temporary buildings to handle school overcapacity. Now they are 200," he says. Police coverage is stretched much more thinly than the public realizes. When a new high school is built, catch-up style, it is almost immediately at full capacity.
How come? A lot of it has to do with history and the political culture of Chesterfield County, which at more than 400 square miles is almost twice the size of Henrico, Richmond's other big suburban county. Back in the 1950s, state road planners put Interstate 64 through Henrico, not Chesterfield, giving Henrico a better tax base because it provided commercial nodes for development at every cloverleaf.
Chesterfield, meanwhile, was stuck in its sleepy Southern-style way of doing business. Elected officials were good old boys and girls who made a fetish about being "Chesterfield-born" and were sops for every development project that came down the pike. Trouble was, their proud insularity made them woefully ignorant of suburban growth and in the 1990s on, they made stupid decision after stupid decision.
The good old boy and girl crowd never got the math that houses can't pay for their demands on services. For that you need extra retail and industry. They never considered how dependent upon cars the residential projects they approved were, leading to a host of other problems, such as more street congestion, more air pollution, longer commuting times, and even, according to a recent American Pediatric Association study, a new generation of fat children.
Durfee, often put down as a Yankee "come here" by professional Southerners, says she got involved in "smart growth" policies after consulting her twin brother, who is an urban planner. She attended scores of planning and board of supervisors meetings, endured insults that she was a stupid meddler and faced the wrath of Realtors, builders and other parts of housing-industrial complex. For a number of years, Chesterfield's board acted as anything but a democratic institution. Citizens asking tough questions at public meetings were routinely shouted down and put down and in one case, arrested after refusing to obey orders to shut up.
"I would go meetings think they'd be pro-active, but they were using outdated plans from 1989 to 1991. They just didn't understand, Durfee says. Magnolia Green, for instance, was approved for rezoning in 1991 and like many projects in Chesterfield, sat dormant for years.
Superviors did not heed long-term predictions that the demographic patterns that favored Chesterfield's family-oriented growth patterns in the 1980s and 1990s were coming to an abrupt halt now. Baby boomers who wanted the house and lot and land for their kids now aren't willing to upsize after their kids move on. The kids themselves tend not to want big, single family houses on big lots, preferring smaller units closer to urban centers.
The result, according to Chesterfield's planning deparment, is that the county has about 50,000 rezoned lots not yet built upon. That's more than the rest of suburban Richmond combined and exceeds even the number in Loudoun County, once the nation's fastest-growing suburban area. Builders complain that a lot of these rezoned lots are in places where people don't want to live, ignoring the fact that they were cheerleaders for rezoning back in the day. And, due to peculiarities in state law, it is very hard to downzone upzoned property. So who knows what will happen to places such as Magnolia Green.
As for Durfee, she prevailed in 2007 elections and won a supervisor's position in a tight, four-candidate race. She says that the county is upgrading its comprehensive plan and for the first time in decades will look at growth on a holistic, rather than piecemeal, basis. And for someone treated like the County Idiot for many years, she's suddenly looking pretty savvy.
Peter Galuszka
116 comments:
The death march of real estate:
1. Sub-prime - 2 year teaser rates - problem almost washed through the system.
2. Option ARM - 5 to 7 year teaser - problems just starting
3. Alt - A - 5 to 7 year teaser, risk between prime and subprime, may be worst mortgage class - problems just starting
4. Commercial - resets at 5 to 7 years, writedowns just about to start, largest dollar total of loan losses
I would strongly advise that the "anti suburban" prophets refrain from declaring the meltdown to be a strictly suburban problem for about 3 more years.
Subprime losses were just the start.
And for LarryG - printing loads of money sparks inflationary fears. This, in turn, causes lenders (such as the Chinese) to demand higher interest rates in order to achieve an acceptable real return. Rising interest rates will cause a higher incidence of defaults on all ARMs and commercial loans with resets. This is another example of how printing money to solve the liquidity trap can cause unintended ancillary problems.
BTW - I think Peter and Marleen are right - I'm less sure that these problems are concentrated in new subdivisions in the suburbs. There are lots of Alt-A, ARMs and commercial real estate in cities. If these loans follow the subprime example - it may not really matter where you live.
Hey LarryG - It seems that I may have a friend who sees the deficits as a big problem just like I do.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=agmj05AcqWHo
Groveton:
"I liked this David Leonhardt article about the China-US economic relationship. But I do have a problem with this passage:
" The most obviously worrisome part of the situation today is that the Chinese could decide that they no longer want to buy Treasury bonds. The U.S. government’s recent spending for bank bailouts and stimulus may be necessary to get the economy moving again, but it also raises the specter of eventual inflation, which would damage the value of Treasuries. If the Chinese are unnerved by this, they could instead use their cash to buy the bonds of other countries, which would cause interest rates here to jump, prolonging the recession."
"Um, no. Right now we’re in a liquidity trap, which, as I explained in an earlier post, means that we have an incipient excess supply of savings even at a zero interest rate.
In this situation, America has too large a supply of desired savings. If the Chinese spend more and save less, that’s a good thing from our point of view. To put it another way, we’re facing a global paradox of thrift, and everyone wishes everyone else would save less.
Or to put it a third way, the argument that a reduction in China’s dollar purchases would be contractionary for America
...because it would drive up interest rates is equivalent to the argument that fiscal expansion is contractionary for the same reason — and equivalently wrong.
But what if China doesn’t spend more, but just reallocates its reserves from dollars to, say, euros? The answer is, that’s also good for us: a weaker dollar will help our exports, at Europe’s expense.
One of the things I tried to tell the Chinese was precisely that the old co-dependence no longer exists. For now, at least, their dollar purchases are an unalloyed bad thing from America’s point of view."
http://tinyurl.com/orecgf
read it and weep Groveton.
Our BOS is now telling us that if we don't build more houses that we won't be able to repay our bonds... unless we have a tax increase.
shades of Ray Hyde!
" Survey: Most economists see recession end in '09
WASHINGTON – More than 90 percent of economists predict the recession
will end this year, although the recovery is likely to be bumpy.
That assessment came from leading forecasters in a survey by the
National Association for Business Economics released Wednesday. It is
generally in line with the outlook from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben
Bernanke and his colleagues.
....
Still, the forecasters believe the worst is already behind the country
in terms of lost economic activity.
....
President Barack Obama's $787 billion stimulus package of increased
government spending and tax cuts, near-zero interest rates ordered by
the Fed and government programs to get banks to lend more freely again
all factor into the expected economic revival."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090527/ap_on_bi_ge/us_economic_recovery/...
" This generally better news is complicating the lives of Ben
Bernanke and his colleagues on the board of the Federal Reserve Bank.
Until now, they had an unambiguous goal: do everything necessary to
avoid having a credit crunch produce a collapse of the financial
system, and pump cash into the economy to prime the pump, as we were
wont to say in the 1930s. By most standards, Bernanke did what he had
to do, and did it very well. Not only did he drive short-term interest
rates close to zero, putting downward pressure on other interest
rates--most notably mortgage rates. He also seemed to devise one
gambit after another to prop up the economy, short of, but not very
short of dropping dollars from a helicopter and demonstrating that his
sobriquet, Helicopter Ben, was well earned."
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/475bzhpu.asp
then we have:
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/tag/ben-s-bernanke/
give it up Groveton...
The economy is pulling out and the vast majority of folks give the credit to the stimulus even as they worry about the looming inflation.
Grovteon:
...what if there was such a thing as a Liquidity Trap and it did/would lead to a serious recession perhaps even a depression....
... and the believed strategy to arrest it would be a large stimulus but you did not know exactly how much...
..but what you did believe was that if you did a stimulus but it was not "enough" .. it could actually accelerate the spiral to a recession/depression...
..so you decide that you'd err on the side of too much and then deal with the deficit/inflationary consequences later after the recession/depression was averted and the economy recovered.
Now suppose you are Bernanke and the rest of the Obama folks and there was a strong consensus about the above thinking and so they proceeded to implemented as agreed.
What exactly would you fault them for?
Would you fault them for doing "too much" stimulus/deficit?
What would you do instead?
If the Obama folks felt like too little would lead to failure.. would you still think they were wrong/misguided/incompetent/irresponsible?
It's been speculated by some that if McCain and the Republicans were in charge, we'd now be in the middle of the second depression and for the same reasons as the first.
thoughts?
"self-styled watchdog on out of control growth. "
that's always the worst kind.
Self-styled means you set the rules, watchdog infers power and agression, and describing whatever it is you are watching as "out-of-control", compromises any attempt at rational thought.
Then combine that set up with the first quote:
"Residential is a big drain on society and the board of supervisors didn't understand this. They thought that building more homes paid for itself"
And what you have is a recipe for failure to communicate, total lack of understanding, and an excuse to hash the real issues.
At least the Bay Journal has come out of the closet and admitted on paper that theri goal is to prevent growth, not manage it.
I don't suppose that anyone ever suggested to Durfee that IF residential in fact does not pay its opwn way, that maybe it is because residences are not paying enough taxes, or that the tax system is skewed such that the costs are paid some other way.
Next she is going to say that houses only pay one third of their cost in the county budget, ignoring the fact taht two thirds of th emoney comes from other sources.
RH
"There used to be 20 temporary buildings to handle school overcapacity. Now they are 200,"
OK,
And how many temporary buildings are there to handle top government administration?
How many for police?
And while we wait for all the paper to percolate through the system, how many people living in temporary housing?
RH
"The good old boy and girl crowd never got the math that houses can't pay for their demands on services."
I've got a few scholarly papers on the cost or rural community services, that point out whay this commonly held position is wrong. Anyone who really wants to know the truth (or at least different versions of it) can find it in a few minutes.
painting this kind of idea as established fact without suggesting the limitations is false advertising.
RH
RH
"The result, according to Chesterfield's planning deparment, is that the county has about 50,000 rezoned lots not yet built upon."
So what is the problem? If they are not built upon there are no services costs. If you don;t think they will be built on, what is to worry. And for the few that are built on, someone is going to get a very reasonable price.
In the meantime, some farmer is probably renting the land, and turning a profit that he could not, if he had toown the property.
This can't be the real complaint, some other goal is underlying this.
"She says that the county is upgrading its comprehensive plan ..."
Isn't there usually a predefined schedule for comp plan revisions, like 20 years?
Is this revision on schedule or at her behest? I'll bet if she was on the other side of the table she would be the first to say "This isn't in accordance to the plan, you can't change the plan."
RH
Anonymous,
I think the point is that if Chesterfield has rezoned 50,000 lots -- more than any other Richmond suburb and probably the most in the state, it is an indication that something is wrong. How many more lots were rezoned without thought to Sprawl and WERE built upon. Thyat is hte problem.
Peter Galuszka
I think Va law requires at least every 5 but it can be more often than that - and amendments are allowed also.
One would think that if taxes are sufficient prior to growth occurring then why would they need to be raised if more growth occurs?
In theory..the taxes are to pay for O&M and CIPs.
CIPs are based on known replacement costs for infrastructure plus enough extra to handle new infrastructure usually for a growth rate around 2%.
When the growth rate exceeds that amount - the "rate" at which new infrastructure is needed - accelerates.
For instance, at a 2% rate.. a new school might be needed once every two or three years but if a high growth scenario .. you may need as many as 5 new schools a year - as was the case with Loudoun and other high growth counties.
Not every county in Va, by the way, is allowed to negotiate for cash proffers - ONLY those who exceed a baseline growth rate - designated as "high growth" counties in the code.
One might ask.. why the State - a Dillon-rule state granted some counties the right to obtain cash proffers.
Well it goes back to that growth rate scenario.
Ray sez.. "maybe you need to have higher taxes"
right...
and what happens when you approve new growth and then raise taxes to pay for it?
Well... you're looking at it.
the current BOS gets thrown out and is replaced by folks who will reject the idea that new growth should be paid for by higher taxes - no matter what rate of growth ...
It's actually a balanced system if you think about it.
Most folks will tolerate a reasonable rate of growth with tax increases..on the modest side.
but if they see a LOT of new growth and then their taxes are raised a LOT to pay for it...
then bad stuff will happen depending on one's point of view as to what constitutes "bad stuff".
For me.. it means a turnover of experienced people to be replaced by less experienced who will require some time to really understand what their job is.
"bad stuff" also means all kinds of collateral damage from more restrictive growth policies.
"bad stuff" also means crowded schools and roads and no easy way to regain the original levels of service.
if you want to stop/end "no growth" policies - you need to find a way to "grow" levels-of-service or at least maintain them as you grow.
If you fail.. "bad stuff" happens.
In the end - growth "wins" anyhow...
just look around at most places... that are growing...
they continue to grow and if there is a "no growth" mindset..it sure does not show up in the demographic/annualized statistics kept by the Weldon-Cooper folks.
"Most folks will tolerate a reasonable rate of growth with tax increases..on the modest side."
I do not believe you. This is where we simply part company on premises.
Some or even most folks will CLAIM to hold that position, but if youget under their skin far enough they will admit openlytheir real purpose is to slam the door.
Like I said, Chesapeake Bay Journal is now up front about this.
If what you say is true we could simply limit growth to a half or one percent and let people bid for it. youwould find out pretty quick that under this scenarion growth WOULD pay for itself.
Next thing you know some supervisor would want to raise the limits, to get more revenue, but if you make the limits too high the prices developers are willing to bid would drop.
Eventualy you would find that development does not pay, not for the developers and not for the county. and the reason would be that the price is too low, not because there is anything wrong with residential growth.
Total cost = cost of production + cost of externailities + cost of government controls.
Same as always.
Durfee has no interest in looking for the lowest total cost, she just wants maximum government controls, or more or different, anyway.
When someone is complaining too the supervisors (successfully) about someone holding kiddie horse shows on the neighboring farm, or a produce stand that has become too successful, then your claim about waht "most people" want rings hollow to me.
I have seen and heard too much evidence that leads me to the opposite conclusion. what Durfee wants is to manipulate that equation to either a) her advantage or the advatage of her group, or at best b) to her preconcieved notion of what the right answer to the equation must be.
RH
"they continue to grow and if there is a "no growth" mindset.."
Are we talking about "Will there be growth?", or "Does residential pay?"
Will there be growth? Yes, until some people grab control and property rights become completely meaningless. See the Chesapeake Bay Journal.
"Does residential pay?" Not the way we bill the charges and not the way we do the accounting. No real buisiness would be allowed to do the accounting the way the antigrawth crowd does.
The fact that there is growth doesn't mean we are dong it right (or wrong) or getting the lowest total cost, which is government's only legitimate goal.
By seeking government power with some other agenda in mind, people like Durfee are stting a bad and unethical example, in my view.
RH
"but if they see a LOT of new growth and then their taxes are raised a LOT to pay for it..."
That is a commonly held point of view, but it is most assuredly generally wrong: They are looking at only two parts (growth nad taxes) of a much larger economic engin in which they participate in multiple ways.
That view is small minded, narwo minded, stupid, self defeating and most assuredly wrong.
RH
In Loudoun county they had over the past thirty years more growth and bigger tax increases than Fauquier.
At he end of thirty years every (statistical)person in Loudoun has more wealth and more income, as well as more taxes, than the citizens of Fauquier. Loudoun citizens also have less open space and wild habitat, and farm income, maybe.
But you cannot simply point at growth and then point at taxes and say grwoth must be bad. Well, you can, of course, just don't do that and expect me to believe you have a single functioning brain cell.
RH
" I do not believe you. This is where we simply part company on premises."
Look around you guy.
Do you think NoVa has a "no growth" mindset or has suffered from "no growth"?
you tickle me.
no matter how much growth an area has.. it's not "enough".
they could have had more had they not had "restrictions".
any less "restrictions" in NoVa... and everyone would strangle from the traffic.
" If what you say is true we could simply limit growth to a half or one percent and let people bid for it. "
that's what Spotsylvania is doing.
they have a 2% limit.
" See the Chesapeake Bay Journal."
how about providing some excerpts and links to them?
" That is a commonly held point of view, "
well.. more than that...
you get your tax bill and it's 25% higher than last year and your mortgage payment goes up $50 a month.
so.. it's much more than a "commonly-held view"
the folks that experience this let their BOS know that they're are not going to tolerate next year with another increase without a discussion about the election.
that's how these new folks get into office guy.
" At he end of thirty years every (statistical)person in Loudoun has more wealth and more income, as well as more taxes, than the citizens of Fauquier."
not if their salary has not kept up with the property tax increases... your "wealth" would be in your home and if you were dumb enough to "withdraw" it via a home-equity loan..you'd be "under-water" and would lose ...
" But you cannot simply point at growth and then point at taxes and say grwoth must be bad."
I guess it depends who you are and what your income level is but if you bought about as much house as you could afford - and you didn't count on property tax increases going up along with your ARM then your "view" might not be very appreciative of the "growth" of your "wealth".
that's the problem RH.
People have a salary and their income.. and even if their house is gaining in value.. it's a paper gain and does not help them with the $200 electric bill comes right after they paid their taxes that were $200 higher than last year.
I'm not trying to justify it.
but I'm telling you how it happens.
you don't understand it because you're not the one getting the higher tax bills but the folks getting them.. they understand.
"...and you didn't count on property tax increases going up along with your ARM then your "view" might not be very appreciative of the "growth" of your "wealth".
that's the problem RH."
So now the problem is insufficient planning for contingency on YOUR part, but failing to take the blame or responsibility for YOUR failures and YOUR new home you are going to take it out on government and anybody ELSE with a [potential] new home.
And I'm supposed to accept that as a realistic rationale for how government should do ITS planning?
And I'm supposed to ignore the obvious self aggrandizing interests in a policy of slamming the door behind me?
The people with ARMS laughed at me for years, while interest rates were declniing (and they spent the moey every month on things that I don't have). Why hould I feel sorry for someone with an ARM now? Why should I let the fact of ARMS for some individuals control the direction and proper analysis of the true cost of government policy?
RH
I'll agree that growth in equity is a paper gain. But didn't many of these same people turn it into a real gain by cashing out of equity? And now I'm supposed to bail them out of a mortgage they are upside down on - when they already spent their equity.
While I'm doing without goodies and paying the full freight on my "paper equity"? Full freight plus 50 or 100% depending on who you believe. Full freight and even more just because ethano has driven up the price of corn and therefore "cropland", which the farm supposedly is?
-----------------------------
These same people could cash out and buy a new and larger home or a smaller and lesser home --- providing that the growth targets insure a reasonable supply of homes. But then, with a reasonable supply of homes their value and taxes might not gone up as much.
Your argument is like the two customers at a restaurant:
"Boy, the food is terrible here"
"Yeah, and the portions are so small, too."
---------------------------
You do knoew that if I'm a developer at a hearing and I complain that governemt regs are taking all the profit out of my project, that government will tell me they are PROHIBITED from any consideration of an individuals finances: they are restricted by law to consideration ONLY of the county's finances.
This is a primary reason why no one is looking out for the lowest total cost in my equation: many times government ONLY concerns itself with the third term on the right hand side. In doing so they forget that the ONLY reason for government action is to lower total costs on the left side, which is what maximises opportunity for everyone.
Obviously, the people battling for status quo (no growth) don't care about that, and they are willing to consider ANY rationalization to get what they want.
They are welcome to do that, theyare free to think whatever they want. But I don't have to think that cutting you nose of to spite your neighbors makes the slightest sense.
And I am entitled to demand that government make decisions based on true facts, and not homilies, platitudes, guesswork, and presumptive error in caution.
So when some one says "residential doesn't pay" then I say lets be clear here. Are we talking all residential or just new residential? The bills are getting paid; if residential does not pay then is it because they don't pay enough, or because someone else is paying FOR them?
I find that people get extremely uncomfortable when you look them straight in the eye and ask those questions.
Pretty soon they stop talking or change the subject. Those seem like pretty simple questions to me.
RH
" you don't understand it because you're not the one getting the higher tax bills but the folks getting them.. they understand."
You think I don't get higher tax bills? What they tell me is that I get among the highest tax bills of all. I would not mind paying high and additional taxes on agricultural land, if I got some agricultural services, instead of paying for someone else's school, just because "residential doesn't pay".
Like I said, maybe they don't pay because someone else is paying for them. Since they don't make any more farms and the do make more homes the excess I pay gets to be more and more diluted: there isn't enough of my EXCESS taxes to go around, consequently someone elses have to go up.
Why am I supposed to feel bad about that?
RH
" So now the problem is insufficient planning for contingency on YOUR part, "
you can be AWARE of the possibility of tax increases but you won't necessarily be earning more money if/when they happen.
it's not a lack of planning any more or less than you might say someone should have known that inflation would be 8% or gasoline would go up a buck.
" Why should I let the fact of ARMS for some individuals control the direction and proper analysis of the true cost of government policy?"
"Government Policy" is dictated, in part, by elections guy.
" nd now I'm supposed to bail them out of a mortgage they are upside down on - when they already spent their equity."
no...but if you ask them if they want a paper gain and more traffic and crowded schools - their answer may well be "no".
" they are restricted by law to consideration ONLY of the county's finances."
man.. I cannot believe how often you go off the rails Ray.
"county finances" = "taxpayer finances" = elections
" Why am I supposed to feel bad about that?"
it really don't matter.
if enough folks think their taxes have gone up too higher at the same time that growth is perceived to cause degradation of people levels of service/quality of life.. the bums get thrown out.
here's what you cannot get around no matter how you wiggle.
the growth policies of a county affect the people who pay taxes who,in turn can elected/unelect the folks who set the growth policies.
As long as folks can elect their county leaders - counter leaders will have to pay attention to those that elect them.
For Groveton:
"The theory of the fiscal stimulus:
How will a debt-financed stimulus
affect the future?"
http://www.cepr.org/pubs/PolicyInsights/PolicyInsight34.pdf
"it's not a lack of planning any more or less than you might say someone should have known that inflation would be 8% or gasoline would go up a buck."
Oh, come on, you have to plan for some contingency in home ownership.
-----------------------
"Government policies are controlled to some extent by elections"
Who runs the government is controlled by elections. Regardless of who runs it government has no business issuing policies that do not contribute to a net public benefit. This is according to the GAO.
People who elect the government have no right to expect that government will give THEM a better deal than other citizens. the government has an obligation to protect minorities. Voting in a policy that give YOU a good deal at someone elses expense is stealing. It violates your own concept that your rights end at my property line.
-----------------------
"that's what Spotsylvania is doing.
they have a 2% limit."
So anyone in spotsylvania can bid against other builders and be guaranteed the right to build, if they win the bidding process and don;t exceed 2% growth?
Nope, Spotsylvania can turn down proposals based on what they want and don;t want, regardless of financial considerations. As per the example you provided earlier.
If it was just about growth management they could say that 2% growth equals 2300 buildig permits and auction them off to the highest bidders. You would be pretty much guaranteed minimum financial impact for the growth at hand.
-----------------------
"if enough folks think their taxes have gone up too higher at the same time that growth is perceived to cause degradation of people levels of service/quality of life.. the bums get thrown out."
So you support mob rule and legalized stealing by whoever got there first and wishes to slam the door behind them.
----------------------------
"As long as folks can elect their county leaders - counter leaders will have to pay attention to those that elect them."
No they don't. They are hired to be leaders, not Dons. As long as the electorate hires only people who will enforce bad policy on their behalf, they will get what they want, which is less than they might have.
What you cannot get around is that your claimed ethical position that property rights are equal is not supported by your fall back on mob rule to get what you want at any expense as long as it is someone else's: which is fundamentally unethical and violates your starting position.
RH
"Mobilized by distressingly low levels of public trust in official statistics, the U.K. government is embarking on a daring, and possibly unique, experiment. With broad support, Parliament in 2007 approved the formation of the U.K. Statistics Authority, a group with the budget, authority and independence to question other government agencies on the numbers they release to the public."
Interesting, a truth-assurance agency would be a good thing, also useful for validating the truthfulness of other statements that often get twisted by marketing. We might be finally making progress with the problems that Josiah Stamp identified many years ago."
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/mlm/
RH
re: "mob rule"
is one-man-one-vote elections
re: " Regardless of who runs it government has no business issuing policies that do not contribute to a net public benefit. This is according to the GAO."
how is this decided?
the guy who is paying higher taxes and driving on more crowded roads .. is going to perceive "net public benefit" in ways different from you.
If he thinks one way and you think the other way - how would you resolve it?
" What you cannot get around is that your claimed ethical position that property rights are equal is not supported by your fall back on mob rule to get what you want at any expense as long as it is someone else's: which is fundamentally unethical and violates your starting position."
"mob rule" is how we elect BOS, the Governor of the State and our representatives in Congress, etc.
"property rights" are what the majority of property owners agree what they should be.
A person that owns property and pays taxes - also gets to vote.
A group of existing property owners - constitute a "community" of property owners who take pride in the quality of life provided by their community.
The law says that a Community has the right to decide how they will grow -
Va Code gives that right to a County which consists of existing property owners who elect leaders.
It's the way our system works Ray.
It can be good, bad or even ugly but it's better than other systems where people do not have one-man-one-vote governance.
"the guy who is paying higher taxes and driving on more crowded roads .. is going to perceive "net public benefit" in ways different from you."
Why is that? I'm driving on the same more crowded roads and paying even higher taxes than he is, most likely.
Net public benefit is measured, not perceived. We can Choose not to know what the statistics are, but that won't change the facts: people in Loudon own more and earn more than people in Fauquier, and they have experienced more growth.
As long as we have leaders that lead us the wrong way our perception will consist of a view out the wrong window.
RH
how is this decided?
Total cost = production cost + external costs + government regulatory cost.
If you can't lower total costs, then it is a bad policy. In this example you cannot decide by simply seeing growth and higher taxes, because those two items don't add up to the total cost.
People like Durfee who lead us to see only those two items are bad leaders.
RH
"That's the way our system works."
Yeah, well, I've got a mower that is missing its sickle bar. I can hook it up to the tractor and turn it on and drive it all over the landscape, but it just won't cut it.
Then when someone points out that it isn't doing a very good job, I can just say, well that's the way the system works.
And I would be right, so far as it goes. The problem is that the system is missing its teeth.
RH
"If he thinks one way and you think another, how would you resolve it?"
If he thinks the property line is one side of the fencerow and I think the other, then we hire a surveyor and measure.
It does not matter what he thinks or what I think. The truth is out there and we simply have to agree to find it.
Otherwise one of us is stealing from the other.
Why is that so hard to understand?
RH
"county finances" = "taxpayer finances"
You have got to be kidding me.
County finances in no shape or fashion equals taxpayer finances.
Not unless you count all of the taxpayers and all of the finances.
The county can turn down a building application because they feel it will affect county finances to the negative of a million dollars. They do not have to consider that this decision may cost the builder fifty million.
dollars. In fact they are not even allowed to consider that.
And it may cost his neighbors and other taxpayers 20 million in exteranal costs, which you will surely hear about in the public meetings.
The government turns it down because they think they are ahead a million, the public is happy because they think they avoided a 20 million hit.
But "the county" as a whole is out 29 million, assuming the applicant is a county resident.
In Fauquier they work on the (wrong)assumption that every home they don't build saves the county $12,000 a year. But if I could have built a million dollar home and make 20% on it then the interest on that 20% is $14,000 a year.
Since I am part of the county, that government decison is costing "the county" $2000 a year instaed of saving them $12,000, the way they figure it.
In actual fact the only way they are "saving" $12,000 a year is by staling it from me in opportunity costs.
[I have no intention of doing such a thing, the argument is for illustration only.].
"mob rule" is how we elect BOS, the Governor of the State and our representatives in Congress, etc."
Yes, that is how they get elected. Once elected there are certain things they are prohibited from doing - by law.
One of those things is to rule always in favor of the majority. Once hired, they have an equal fiduciary responsibility to ALL taxpayers, not just the ones that elected them.
The majority might favor my neighbor who thinks the property line is on my side of the fence, but that does not make them right. Being in the majority gives them no right to change the unit of measure. It gives them no right to change the position of where the line actually is.
That line is wherever it is and no amount of mob rule can change it. What they can do is beat up on me until I give up the effort to defend my property. They can steal from me, but nothing they can do will change the facts on the ground.
And, having done that, no amount of flag waving or proclamations of democracy can make what they have done right or ethical.
RH
"A group of existing property owners - constitute a "community" of property owners who take pride in the quality of life provided by their community.
The law says that a Community has the right to decide how they will grow - "
The law also says they do not have the right to steal. They cannot simply decide that the property line is on my side of the fence.
But if they take a million dollars out of my pocket to preserve their quality of life to tthe tune of a half million dollars, then that is exactly what they have done.
The only difference is that under law we have done a better job of defining fence lines than we have "quality of life". We don;t have any recognized, independent "quality of life" surveyors to turn to. We don't have a laser transit and GPS for "quality of life", but we could have if we set out to do it.
The reason we don't is that we prefer mob rule because (some of us think) it allows us to steal. It may ENABLE us to steal, but it does not allow us to.
THAT is still against the law.
RH
"A group of existing property owners - constitute a "community" of property owners "
Under a systems view, future citizens are accorded the same rights, values and costs as present ones. Government, being immortal or eternal has an equal obligation to oits future citizens as its present ones.
By claiming that existing residents constitute the whoae community you are effectively claiming superior property rights for present citizens - which you claim cannot exist.
If it is the case that present citizens decide, then the heck with Global warming: its not gonna be my problem, why should I pay for it?
The mob gets to elect the government, but once hired the government DOES NOT work for the majority. It is the government for ALL citizens, majority, minority and future, and it has an OBLIGATION to treat all of them equally.
RH
" Under a systems view, future citizens are accorded the same rights, values and costs as present ones."
really? how would this work?
somebody already owns the land.
land does not "multiply" in the future.
so the existing property owners already pay taxes and already vote.
the existing property owners - the community - decide how they want their existing properties to "grow" in the future.
how else would you "represent" the future owners?
"somebody already owns the land."
Well, by george, at last.
Then they should have the same right to put a house on their land (eventually) as you had on yours.
That's how it would work.
And if the current citizens do not want any more future citizens then they would have to buy the land or at least the right to develop it from the owner.
But under mob rule the majority can simply "downzone" all future property rights. This gives the present owners and citizens superior property rights over future citizes, which you claim is not or should not be allowed. Downzoning without compensation is just a polite word for stealing.
-----------------------
Government is going to be the govenrment of all citizens, present and future.
Governmnet has no interest in promoting the interests of current citizens to the exclusion of future citizens.
Governments only legitimate goal is to provide maximum benefit for minimum cost. And that means it has an interest in growth. And that means growth that is neither too fast nor too slow. Too fast depletes capital budget and too slow depletes future tax base.
This is analogous to a business borrowing money: too much and you bankrupt the business, too little and you cannot grow as you might.
Therefore, current citizens have a selfish interest that is at odds with governments long term interest, as well as future citizens who have not yet opted to avail themselves of the rights and liberties that present citizens have already enjoyed and now wish to keep for themselves.
----------------------------
On the other hand a benefit some time in the future is not worth as much as a benefit now, so you have to apply some kind of discount rate to future benefits.
If global warming is going to hapen 1000 years into the future you would not want to spend as much on it as if it were to happen in ten years.
-------------------------------
"so the existing property owners already pay taxes and already vote."
Cute.
Sure he does, but he get one vote for 200 or 500 acres or 1000 acres acres and everyone else gets one vote for 1/3 acre.
If the 65000 Fauquier residents vote to elect someone who promises to "save" the farms, what chance will the 2000 farm owners have to protect themselves?
But now you are playing into my previous argument. He already pays taxes, maybe for decades. AND GETS NO SERVICES. That is why the existing residents want to keep him as a farm: they get free money out of the deal. They aren't even shy about it: they advertise the fact out loud.
This is not only stealing, it is blatant stealing, with advertizing, even.
But yet, let him come up for a building permit (if he has any left) and they will claim he is gettng "windfall profits", saturating the base for services, etc etc.
RH
-----------------------------
"the existing property owners - the community - decide how they want their existing properties to "grow" in the future."
Cute, again.
The exisitng DEVELOPED property owners decide how they want their NEIGHBORS exisitng UNDEVELOPED property to NOT GROW is more like it. They have already decided how THEIR properties will grow.
SOME of them are even honest about it. They ADMIT to wanting to slam the door beind them.
-----------------------------
How does it work, really? it is simple, government has to protect EVERYONES property rights equally. Make sure they are DEFINED and RECORDED.
And government managers have to DEFEND those rights, ALL of those rights - even when the property owner or eventual user of those rights is not present at the public hearing.
------------------------
Your claim is that if growth is slow enough, people won't complain.
So higher taxes are OK as long as you sneak up on people, is that it?
Do you want bigger government sooner, or later, is that it? Shoot, if it's later most of us can push the problem off on someone else, the next generation. Then we get what we want, which is status quo until we kick the bucket.
Stick the growth problem on future citizens, they don't have any rights, anyway. What the heck, they don;t even vote, yet.
RH
" Then they should have the same right to put a house on their land (eventually) as you had on yours."
they have the same right that everyone else has - at that point in time.
no one said that rules could not change.
and they do.. and they apply to everyone.
you are not guaranteed a "window of opportunity".
" But under mob rule the majority can simply "downzone" all future property rights."
if a majority of people decide - using the same exact process they use to elect a President - then call it what you wish - but it's the way we decide many issues.
" Governments only legitimate goal is to provide maximum benefit for minimum cost."
in your opinion - and you'll find yourself in the minority on that view.
" The law says that a Community has the right to decide how they will grow - "
The law also says they do not have the right to steal. They cannot simply decide that the property line is on my side of the fence."
again.. only in your view
the community has the right - to decide how they want to grow.
in doing that.. they may well decide that some uses previously allowed - are no longer in the best interests of a majority of people.
this is why we end up with new laws - every year - those laws are usually further restricting some activity previously allowed.
as long as the new laws apply equally to everyone then they are considered fair - and legal.
" it is simple, government has to protect EVERYONES property rights equally. Make sure they are DEFINED and RECORDED."
as long as the laws apply equally to everyone - they are considered fair.
"rights" can and are - changed - this is why we have legislatures and courts.
" And government managers have to DEFEND those rights, ALL of those rights - even when the property owner or eventual user of those rights is not present at the public hearing."
what govt managers RH?
Who do those managers report to?
the public hearing is often a proposal to change something.
it, by law, has to be advertised.
by law, the BOS must hear each person who wishes to speak on the issue.
After the hearing is over with - they can vote.
If their vote is "legal" the change is made.
If it is not - then the courts or legislature will overrule it.
"Property Rights" - BY LAW - CAN BE CHANGED if the process for changing them is followed.
In other words - Ray - it is LEGAL to change Property Rights.
The only rule is that such changes must apply to everyone.
" County finances in no shape or fashion equals taxpayer finances.
Not unless you count all of the taxpayers and all of the finances."
They're called elections Ray.
"Your claim is that if growth is slow enough, people won't complain.
So higher taxes are OK as long as you sneak up on people, is that it?"
I think many people are "ok" with gradual increases in taxes to pay a little bit extra every year to accommodate modest levels of growth as long as the roads and schools can keep up.
But if taxes go up a whole bunch or traffic and schools go up a whole bunch all of them go up...
..then the folks who are experiencing the increased taxes and degradation of quality of life - will seek to find folks to better represent their wishes.
that's the system guy...
if a county grows too fast and/or taxes go up too high too fast.. it usually results in a change in the "management".
You cannot have growth without additional infrastructure.
Additional infrastructure costs money.
The question is who should pay for the additional infrastructure ... and just as important - how much should they pay.
My point has been and continues to be that people will pay some percentage of their income for more infrastructure but they won't pay for unlimited infrastructure - for any conceivable rate of growth.
How do people judge how much they are willing to pay?
by how much the increase in the bill is....
5%... usually no problem
10% ... complaints start
20%+ ... elections cause changes.
so what that means is that most areas can convert raw land to developed land at a rate that won't cause an infrastructure demand that will impose more than about 10% a year increase on people's tax bills.
So.. what some counties do.. is they limit the tax increases but they don't build the additional infrastructure and that results is degradation of the levels of service ..and in turn what most citizens call "quality of life".
Citizens will also throw out of office.. BOS that allow the levels of service to degrade too much ...too soon.
BOS don't get thrown out of office for a 2% or even a 5% rate of growth because at that rate..it is possible to keep the tax increases increases reasonable and at the same time spend enough money on infrastructure to maintain a reasonable level of service.
I would submit to you Ray - that that is what most folks expect from their government and that is what most local government try to achieve.
Their Comp Plan basically is a statement of principle as to how they plan to grow.
The much-maligned 3202 legislation came up with a concept called Urban Development Areas and among other things - it required certain localities to designate enough land for development sufficient for 10 years worth of growth.
What they did not say was.. what rate of growth.
So.. my county picked 2% - so they are going to designate growth areas for 10 years worth of growth at 2% a year.
That, in turn will affect their CIPs for infrastructure.. roads, schools, libraries, etc.
Here's what this also does.
it basically is saying that they are not going to grow at whatever rate might be possible but instead at a more disciplined ..controlled rate of growth.
this is what most folks want - even those who have land to develop.. they don't want a chaotic process nor do they want oppressively crowded roads and schools because it's "bad" for business.
I was reading the Albemarle County Land-Use Handbook and they make the point that property rights are those rights that are "vested" and that anticipatory future use - is not a right according to Va. Law.
I'd be interested in hearing your take on their discussion:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/Forms_Center/Departments/County_Attorney/Forms/2008chapter00-introduction.pdf
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/county_attorney/forms/2008chapter19-vestedrights.pdf
"what govt managers RH?
Who do those managers report to?"
They report to ALL citizens. I have the right to make my opinion known to my supervisor - whether I voted for him or not.
And he would have no way of knowing whether I am a supporter or not.
Once the voting is over, his supporters should have no more rights than the next citizen. We know it doesn;t work that way of course, and that is why we know that politics as practiced is crooked. It is designed to give one group more proeprty rights than another.
But let's not confuse the practice of politics with the practice of government. Government has rules that it must follow which are designed to limit the influence of politics on the fair and evenhanded practice of government.
In fact, just yesterday president Obama eneumerated the criteria which would allow the US government to work with and recognize other governments. First on the list was the idea that government must protect the minorities.
RH
"In other words - Ray - it is LEGAL to change Property Rights."
You think it could be legal for the government to expropriate you rhome, and kick you out on the street without compensation?
My neighbor and I have a proeprty line dispute. You think it is legal for the majority to determine the correct location of that line by simply voting on it?
RH
"they have the same right that everyone else has - at that point in time."
Cute. So if everyone built all at once and we had a 50,000 % growth rat at that time then it would have been OK?
This violates the principle that all citizens past and future have the same rights. What is happening is that present residents are stealing rights from future residents without compensation.
And that is beside the fact that they are gaining permanent hold of new amenities that were never guaranteed when they bought their property. For example, they bought property with a certain amount of unused open space around them. But that amenity was never guaranteed as part of their deed. By now downzoning their neighbors property they are increasing the value of their property at someone elses expense - both now AND in the future.
RH
"I think many people are "ok" with gradual increases in taxes to pay a little bit extra every year "
We disagree on this point. I have met too many people who admit point blank that their aim is to slam the door behind them.
Besides, if time was the issue then instead of downzoning me permanently, why not limit the rate at which I can build, rather than take those rights away permanently.
And then, if some time in the future conditions change, more housing is needed, and I might have some remote change at an upzoning - then expect me to PAY to get my former building rights back again.
Despite what anyone says, it isnt about time or rate of growth, or who pays for infrastructure. It is about greed and protectiong your own current property against future interlopers, same as if we were savage lions on the Savannah.
We are just fooling ourselves into thinking we are more civilized than that. We only kick the interlopers out with LEGAL fangs.
RH
"The law also says they do not have the right to steal. They cannot simply decide that the property line is on my side of the fence."
again.. only in your view"
Like I said, they can vote that the line is wherever they choose to. That doesn't change where teh line is.
If government's primary job is not to protect property rights (of everyone, not just those that elected it), and if that does not boil down to creating the highest net social value for everyone, then what IS the governments job?
"no one said that rules could not change.
and they do.. and they apply to everyone.
you are not guaranteed a "window of opportunity"."
When the ruels change to benefit some people at the expensxse of others, then compensation is required. No one says the rules cannot change. But you do not get to annex the benefits of having open space next to you without paying for that new proerty right.
When you say you are not guaranteed a window of opportunity, it sounds to me exactly like those that admit they want to slam the door or window behind them. they get the opportunity and the next guy doesn't, yet they pay nothing for his loss of opportunity.
We don't call it opportunity cost for nothing. it is a real cost, and without compensation, taking opportunity from someone is stealing.
RH
"if a majority of people decide - using the same exact process they use to elect a President "
How can you say that? It isn't even remotely the same process.
If the presidency was a giant computer, owned by IBM, and we voted to take it away from IBM without compensation, then it would be the same process.
We all own the presidency equally, and just becasue some other party controls it this term, it does nothing to change our stake in it or our ability to elect our manager next term.
Your ownership of your car does not change just because your wife is driving it.
RH
Peter:
The quote said the county had 50,000 lots NOT built upon, and that was the problem.
How can you turn that around and suggest that it is the ones that ARE built upon?
No, the "problem" is that there are 50,000 declared lots available. That makes it a lot harder to make them go away than if there were merely 50,000 undeveloped building rights available: some one has a vested interest in having had those lots surveyed and recorded.
The real "problem" that they are talking about here is how to take away real property as opposed to the usual situation of taking away the mere opportunity of property.
Either way, they should be paid for, but the latter is less valuable than the former.
Larry had the "opportunity" for another lot on his property, and the county took it away. He claims he is OK with this, and I think he is a fool.
But, had he paid to have that potential lot surveyed and recorded, and had he paid the (additional) taxes on it for a few years, then he might feel a lot different.
Even more, had he bought and paid for two lots, and the county suddenly merged them back into one, he might really have a problem.
I don't see any difference whatsoever in the three cases, except for the degree of Larry's vested interest. Whatever it was, he should have been compensated.
Even if he is OK with it, anyone and everyone else should be jumping up and down on the supervisors toes on his behalf - and to protect their own future interests.
RH
"In other words - Ray - it is LEGAL to change Property Rights."
That has got to be the stupidest thing I ever heard in my life.
The way you change property rights is you buy them: even the Constitution says so.
What possible business has the government got if it isn't to protect you and your property?
How about if I change your property rights by coming over and lifting your wallet? Is that legal?
How about if I get 50,000 of my neighbors and we vote to lift your wallet?
Nuts.
RH
"The much-maligned 3202 legislation came up with a concept called Urban Development Areas and among other things - it required certain localities to designate enough land for development sufficient for 10 years worth of growth."
Ever consider it is much maligned for good reason?
It is a direct transfer of wealth from outside the are to inside. It will be the same as the growth decisions made by Loudon and Fauquier that resulted in more wealth for Loudon residents.
Now, suppose that the policy DOES result in more efficient provision of servides and therfore taxes that are a little lower for everyone. (I doubt it, but give the idea benefit of the doubt.)
Every one will get slightly lower taxes, but that effect wll be dwarfed by the transfer in wealth.
--------------------------
The law says it has to accommmodate ten years growth. Spotsy assumes that means at 2%. What happens if they sell out there 2% and then someone wants to buld some more, inside the UDA?
My guess is that if someone wants to build then that ipso facto means there is demand for more growth than 2%. Under 3202 Spotsy would HAVE to make more land available. Still more wealth transfer would occur.
RH
" This violates the principle that all citizens past and future have the same rights. "
there is no such principle in law - only in the minds of those who share your views about property rights.
"Their Comp Plan basically is a statement of principle as to how they plan to grow."
The comp plan is a wish list. Its only real purpose is to make it harder and take longer to change the zoning laws.
If you believe that zoning rules and proerty rights can be changed then so can the comp plan, in which case there is n o point in having it since its sole peuprose is to "prevent" changing the rules in one direction but to allow it in the other.
RH
" We disagree on this point. I have met too many people who admit point blank that their aim is to slam the door behind them."
then you haven't looked around at your neighbors in NoVa...
quite clearly... no matter what they thought about slamming the door behind them..it did not happen.
"as long as the laws apply equally to everyone - they are considered fair."
They don't apply equally to everyone if youchange them AFTER you have taken your advantage.
RH
" How about if I get 50,000 of my neighbors and we vote to lift your wallet?"
why would they support such a law when it would have to apply to their own wallets also?
changes apply to EVERYONE.
"...quite clearly... no matter what they thought about slamming the door behind them..it did not happen."
You are wrong. It absolutely did happen.
Had I tried to build my Alexandria house today, I would be refused. Anyone else in the county in my exact condition would have had the door slammed in their face without compensation.
I've been through this multiple times in multiple counties and states.
We are going to continue to disagree on this. I've been in too many meetings where people said outright "My goal is to slam the door."
When I start going to hearings and people say my goal is fairness and equality in stopping growth, then we can agree.
RH
" How about if I get 50,000 of my neighbors and we vote to lift your wallet?"
why would they support such a law when it would have to apply to their own wallets also?
changes apply to EVERYONE."
Wrong again.
It only applies to those with a wallet to steal. You have already built your house and your "building rights" wallet is empty. What the heck do you care.
How about if we vote to eliminate 20% of ALL building rights, including those already occupied?
Now if you want to keep your home, you would have to BUY a new right from someone who hasn;t used his yet.
THEN it would apply equally to all people.
RH
" How about if I get 50,000 of my neighbors and we vote to lift your wallet?"
why would they support such a law when it would have to apply to their own wallets also?
changes apply to EVERYONE."
Wrong again.
It only applies to those with a wallet to steal. You have already built your house and your "building rights" wallet is empty. What the heck do you care.
How about if we vote to eliminate 20% of ALL building rights, including those already occupied?
Now if you want to keep your home, you would have to BUY a new right from someone who hasn;t used his yet.
THEN it would apply equally to all people.
RH
" What happens if they sell out there 2% and then someone wants to buld some more, inside the UDA?
My guess is that if someone wants to build then that ipso facto means there is demand for more growth than 2%. Under 3202 Spotsy would HAVE to make more land available."
at what point would they have to do that?
every ten years?
or whenever their ten year allotment of land dipped below the 10 year reserve?
the law is mute on this just as it is mute on what rate of growth must be used in designating areas that can accommodate 10 years of growth.
and you greatly underestimate how much the counties can purposely evade compliance.
The law says that counties cannot deny any land for all uses - for instance.. places that sell exotic books but in reality.. they're restricted to places away from schools and churches...etc.. such that at the end of the day.. they're pretty restricted.
The UDAs could be in places where no one wants to have a home... you know....
" We are going to continue to disagree on this. I've been in too many meetings where people said outright "My goal is to slam the door.""
the sheer scope and scale of approved development in NoVa severely undercuts your claim.
iressHow about you change the setback rules? sounds like it applies equally, unless you are the guy with an odd shaped lot.
Still doesn't apply to existing homes. either. You cold Mkae it apply by requiring existing homes to buy additionl set back from those that have a surplus, same as we do for wetlands.
But, if you made the regulation "fair" what do you suppose its chance of passing would be?
It might still pass, but only if everyone could see the real necessity: that its value was worth the cost. That proposition is hoplessly distorted as long as the costs accrue to "someone else".
RH
RH
" This violates the principle that all citizens past and future have the same rights. "
there is no such principle in law - only in the minds of those who share your views about property rights."
Then why worry about global warming which will afffect future residents?
Why do we hear people complaining about us incurring debt that will saddle our grandchildren?
In fact this IS a principle in law, just not in all jusridictions.
GAO says there is no reason for government to pursue a policy that does not provide a net social benefit.
The procedure (as published in government documents) for calculating net social benefit includes calculating the (discounted) benefits to future citizens.
RH
RH
" the sheer scope and scale of approved development in NoVa severely undercuts your claim."
No it doesn't.
For one thing, absent the growth, we have no idea how much the door got slammed. We don't know what it would be like absent the new rules.
For another thing, all I need is ONE case where someone got treated differently than I did.
We could find out, of course. All we have to do is write the new rules fairly, so that people are entitled to compensation. Then we could tell how much the door got slammed by the applications for compensation. Pretty soon we would know how much those new reules we "wanted" so much and so many voted for are actually costing us.
And when we have to pay the price for new rules we will only have the ones that are worth while. Not that we won;t still have new rules, but they will be fair, and also truly necessary.
RH
"Still doesn't apply to existing homes. either. You cold Mkae it apply by requiring existing homes"
you're actually complaining about a protection of property rights - called "grandfathering".
it protects property owners from retroactive laws..
" We don't know what it would be like absent the new rules."
actually we do.
when a project like Tysons is proposed - they have to do a study to show how more growth will impact traffic and other public facilities.
We know pretty well that more growth in NoVa will result in even more crowded roads and facilities.
" Then we could tell how much the door got slammed by the applications for compensation."
who would you propose should pay the money for compensation?
and tell me again how you're going to make existing property owners pay compensation for "anticipated" property rights?
you keep looking for that King don't you?
King of Property Rights.
the guy who is the "decider".
Democracy is "mob rule"
we must have a King instead... to keep the mobs honest...
"Behavioral study indicates that individuals perceive a distance that is appropriate for different types of messages; they also establish a comfortable distance for personal interaction and nonverbally define this as their personal space. Research supports the hypothesis that the violation of this personal space can have serious adverse effects on communication. Thus, if an individual is to be mutually satisfied in a communication encounter, his/her personal space must be respected. Should an intruder invade this personal space while also trespassing within
territorial boundaries he placed himself in double jeopardy and must compensate for the other's increased anxiety.
Territory at the Office
Territorial claims differ from personal space in that the personal zone accompanies the
individual while territoriality is relatively stationary. Semi-fixed feature space is often the criteria
used to establish a territory within any environment; it becomes a man's safety zone where he
rests from the rigors of defending personal space from invasion, the dramatic or sudden entry into another's personal zone.
Humans, like animals, indicate their ownership of this established territory and will consequently defend it against all invasions.
Territoriality is established so
rapidly that even the second session in a series of lectures is sufficient to find most of the
audience returning to their same seats. And if one has been sitting in a particular seat and someone else occupies it, one can notice a fleeting irritation. Long-term territory takes on the control of the occupant. This public personal zone, such as an office at work, becomes defended territory, however subtle the defense might be. What is the instant, involuntary reaction should
you arrive at the office only to find someone else sitting at your desk?"
There is the real basis for all of Larry's arguments: primal instinct. My argument is that we can be and should be more civilized than that.
RH
"who would you propose should pay the money for compensation?"
How about the people who propose the rule?
-------------------------
If the rule is truely written to apply to everyone, and if the rule actually supplies a recognizable et social value, then there will be enough "profit" or "value" in it that no one should object for paying for something of obvious value.
In that case everyone should pay (including those that get paid). After all, the rule applies equally to all, right?
RH
" We don't know what it would be like absent the new rules."
actually we do.
when a project like Tysons is proposed - they have to do a study to show how more growth will impact traffic and other public facilities.
We know pretty well that more growth in NoVa will result in even more crowded roads and facilities."
--------------------------
Nice try. You are turning this around.
If we cancelled Tysons we would never know what the costs were, unless we allowed some method for the owners to make claims. Like he shows up with a signed lease for a building he wasn;t allowed to put up.
A public facilities study, isn't the same thing at all. This goes back to our previous argument: the county is restrained by law to consideration of ONLY its own budgetary costs. This is patently crazy since the county is US, all of us and everything we do.
Your point is entirley different from mine. Mine is that when we cancel some growth we cannot say ANYTHING about the impact of that rule on anyone by just looking at the remaining growth that occurred and was not prohibited.
RH
"King of Property Rights.
the guy who is the "decider"."
In my property line example we have a method and procedure for resolving that problem. The guy who is the decider is a professional surveyor.
The problemwe have with other proerty rights is that they are less well defined, less well protected, and there is no agreed procedure for resovng disputes.
That is why we need MORE property rights and not fewer.
RH
"Your point is entirley different from mine. Mine is that when we cancel some growth we cannot say ANYTHING about the impact .."
nope.. same point and in fact.. the reason many proposals are turned down.
The required studies show the predicted impacts - the folks proposing the growth don't want to pay for the impacts and so the county refuses to approve the new growth.
You'll find that the kinds of proposals that get approved are the ones that offer to pay for a substantial portion of the infrastructure needed to mitigate the impacts.
"it protects property owners from retroactive laws.."
Didn't you just say that there is no concept in law that protects people over time. That rules can and are changed? That there is no rule that asays the window of opportunity cannot close?
Why should there be a rule that says it cannot be reopened? Why have rules that work one way in time?
Because we are staking out our territory like wild animals instead of being civilized.
-------------------------
Suppose we have a new setback rule. This rule is supposed to provide a public benefit for everyone. What it means is that we will have some unobstructed space along the roadways that we can eventually tap for future needs, like bike lanes or high spped cable or sewer without digging up the streets.
Who should pay for this new public benefit? In parctice it means that some lots will suddenly be too samll to build on, other lots will need to be made larger, at more expense. Should only the people who build new housespay, or should everyone pay?
Existing owners do not have to actually MOVE their house but they have to pay an amount equivalent to what others wind up paying.
Why should they be grandfathered from that?
RH
" The problemwe have with other proerty rights is that they are less well defined, less well protected, and there is no agreed procedure for resovng disputes.
That is why we need MORE property rights and not fewer."
wrong on all counts.
we have very mature procedures for resolving disputes.
and we have very specific definitions of what "vesting" is also.
the concept of "more" property rights runs smack into impacts on the property rights of others.
so .. if you want "more" you would have to be talking about "more" for all property owners ..and you'd have to get them to agree with you about what "more" is and whether or not it really is in their best interests.
We have a system.
You're advocating essentially having property rights handled by a disinterested 3rd party who has absolute power to decide based on what you think will be someone who "knows" the right answer.
that person does not exist.
there are people LIKE that person but they are not elected and they are usually called "kings" or "dictators".
so you're basically advocating for a benevolent dictator to "protect" property rights.
right?
"and tell me again how you're going to make existing property owners pay compensation for "anticipated" property rights?"
Example.
I want to build a home and I am turned dwon because I do not meet some new requirements.
I hire a real estate professional to do a survey and find me a number of pre-existing homes that would not be allowed under the same new rules, and I get an average appraisal.
I file a claim saying that this represents my opportunity cost. it gets reviewed and maybe adjusted by the county zoning board. (After all I didn't have to actually build the house, so I can;t very well calim the full value of the loss.) They authorize a check be written, and it is billed to the county acounts paid for by all citizens who enjoy the "benefits" of the new rules, including myself.
We develop a procedure for doing this that is fari transparent and predictable, ame as we have for property line disputes.
Now, if such a procedure for compensation was attached to the ISSUANCE of the new rules, then those promoting the rules would have some explaining to do as to why the rules are really worth their cost.
RH
"wrong on all counts.
we have very mature procedures for resolving disputes."
No we don't. It is next to impossible to get to court over zoning disputes.
We have NO procedures for determingin the value of a life damaged by mercury, as you consistently claim.
A property owner has land next to a school under construction. his boundary is protected by a heavy stand of trees. The county building contractor cuts the trees down and steals them, claiming he though they were on school property.
The county denies any responsibility.
What do you suppose happens to the guy who oned the trees? he still has his land, the property line dispute gets resolved.
Where is the mature system for resolving the trees?
If you think we have a full and complete system for valueing, protecting, and trading property rights, you are just dreaming.
RH
"and we have very specific definitions of what "vesting" is also."
Like I said, that is precisely why some people thinkt the 50,000 unvbuilt lots are a "problem". They can't figure out how toget around those rules and de-vestify a lot of people.
The cat is out of the bag and they want to change the rules on grandfathering.
I don't have any problem with that, as long as they find a way to do it fairly. But the problem if they don't do it fairly is that then any existing resident and any existing property is fair game.
RH
"so .. if you want "more" you would have to be talking about "more" for all property owners ..and you'd have to get them to agree with you about what "more" is and whether or not it really is in their best interests."
Preciseley, and what is in theri best interests is a lot different if they have to pay for what they get rather than being allowed to steal it.
I'm not suggesting that rules can't be changed. But rule changes affect property and that has to be compensated.
It is a self fulfilling prophesy then. The only rules that get passed are the ones that result in a net social profit. The rule is worth more to people than whatever it costs.
For every rule that gets passed we "claim" it is for th epublic good, but hen we have no accounting. No professional surveyor or appraiser.
This is easy to fix, but we don;t do it because t would remove our license to steal.
RH
"nope.. same point and in fact.. the reason many proposals are turned down."
You deliberately truncated my statemnt to change its meaning.
What I said was you cannot tell anything about the impact or costs of grwth denied simply by whatever growth still happened.
---------------------------
This has nothing to do with proffers, which is a red herring you areusing to change the argument.
If it was only about the costs of ifrastructure, the we can set a price and let anyone build, who meets the price. or we can set a limit to growth and let people bid for the rights up to that limit.
That isn't what you propose or condone. What you think is a system is something like that nonsense "analysis" by county staff that you posted earlier.
I'll say it again, you cannot tell anything about the costs of grwth denied just by pointing at the growth that happened anyway.
RH
"You're advocating essentially having property rights handled by a disinterested 3rd party who has absolute power to decide based on what you think will be someone who "knows" the right answer.
that person does not exist."
Well, that is pretty close to part of what I might suggest. We could start by making access to the courts on zoning issues easier. And they should ALWAYS be held in some other county. At least you have a chance of getting disinterested persons.
The jury pool is picked at random, unlike the public hearing process that is packed with partisans.
Face it, we have a better process for splitting up the kids in a divorce than we have for deciding proerty rights.
RH
"so you're basically advocating for a benevolent dictator to "protect" property rights.
right?"
We have a system for protecting proerty rights. you steal form me and I have the police come and get you and the property. If I can prove its mine, you have a problem.
It isn't protecting property rights that is the problem. It is defining them and recording ownerhip. That s why some people videtape their homes and alltheir contents and hae the tapes stored by a third party.
You and many others are wont to claim new property rights that never existed before, and which you do not wish to pay for. I thnk society needs to get out the videotape machine before you rob us blind, and make all property worth nothing that isn't protected by mob rule.
RH
" They authorize a check be written, and it is billed to the county acounts paid for by all citizens who enjoy the "benefits" of the new rules, including myself."
what "benefits" do they get?
what if they don't agree that they are "benefits"?
" No we don't. It is next to impossible to get to court over zoning disputes."
if you have a valid legal claim - you will prevail. If you don't then you won't.
"We have NO procedures for determingin the value of a life damaged by mercury, as you consistently claim."
wrong. what I said is that there is no way to determine the cost so bans/restrictions are often based on judgments.
did you ever comment on the Albemarle County Land-use Handbook about at what point property rights are actually vest (by Va Law)?
this is the 100th post so I'm done here..
you can answer in a future thread.
We don't disagee over how long a yard is or how much a pound weighs
because we have near universal agreement, a czar in the for of the bureau of weights and measures, and because it is crucial to our other property rights: it prevents stealing.
If we choose to we can have the same degree of control and agreement over what constitutes a building right.
---------------------------
If you bought a pound of gold and then BWM changed a pound to equal 1.2 lbs, you wold be steamed because suddenly, you paid for a pound but sudddenly you only have 0.8 lb pounds, and you will only get paid for 0.8 lb if you sell.
Instead, BWM decides to grandfather you, so if you already bought a pound of gold we will call it 1.2 pounds anyway, but anyone after you who wants a pound of gold is going to have to get 1.2 lbs.
Yeah, that makes sense.
But that is what we do with zoning.
RH
"if you have a valid legal claim - you will prevail. If you don't then you won't."
Under most zoning law you cannot get to court. You must FIRST avail your self of EVERY administrative remedy, (even the ones you are not interested in) and under the usual byzantine process for each one you won;t live olong enough or have enough money to get through the administrative process to get to court.
So, you research the zoning laws carefully and find exactly the piece of land you want for the purpose you want. You buy the land and ZAP the zoning law gets changed and your plans and investment are out the window.
This is simple, you ought to be vested with all the zoning rules in place a time of purchase. File them with your deed. Then there can be no argument. if the county wants some of your rights back, they can buy them. If they are not willing to buy them, then they must not be worth having, and they should not be troubled that you have them.
RH
"what "benefits" do they get?
what if they don't agree that they are "benefits"?"
Well cripes they are the ones that passed th enew rules, don't they know what the benefits are?
And no, you don't get it, they are not paying the benefits they are paying the claims for those who took losses. the sum of all those claims is the cost of the benefits.
Whether the benefits are worth the cost is up to those that "demanded" the benefits.
But if they get away with paying nothing, while others bear the costs, then those benefits were stolen, whether they are actually worth anything or not.
RH
The Economic Agreement of Bogota, signed at the Ninth International Conference of American States is among the most explicit definitions of adequate compensation. it is one of a number of treaties the US is party to.
"The States shall take no discriminatory action against investments by virtue of which foreighn enterprises or capital may be deprived of legally acquired property rights, for reasons or under conditions different from those that the Constitution or laws of that country provide for the expropriation of national property. So, what is the criterion under internationa law as to what compensation must be paid? It is the "Value of the undertaking at teh moment of dispossession plus interest to the day of payment."
That is international law, Why should local law be any different?
RH
"The right to acquire, use, and alienate property has long been regarded as a fundamental value in Anglo-American constitutional thought. (1) Historically, respect for private property was seen as providing the basis for individual autonomy and the enjoyment of liberty. (2) Reflecting this link between liberty and property, both the federal and state constitutions contain guarantees of private ownership. (3) Still, as with other individual rights, the rights of property owners have never been absolute. The common law of nuisance imposes restrictions on landowner activity that adversely impacts a neighbor's enjoyment of his or her land. (4) Moreover, zoning has limited land use for decades, ostensibly to safeguard public health and safety. (5)
In the late twentieth century, the emergence of the modern environmental movement, accompanied by often apocalyptic rhetoric, resulted in the enactment of a series of laws stringently controlling land use. Such legislation has made substantial inroads upon the traditional rights of owners. Property rights advocates have increasingly challenged the environmental agenda in both the judicial and legislative arena. Today, environmentalists and landowners appear trapped in a destructive cycle of mutual antagonism. Environmentalists harbor deep suspicions of market forces, and they commonly posit that recognition of the traditional dominion rights of property owners is antithetical to environmental protection. They frequently assert that unfettered private rights in land lead to widespread degradation and that individual property rights are an obstacle to regulations that effectuate the public interests."
Property Rights and Environmental Regulation: The Case for Compensation.
by James W. Ely Jr.
RH
Although the Supreme Court held in 1992 in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council that the Fifth Amendment generally requires that property owners be compensated when they are prohibited from making economically productive use of the property, State and local governments have been finding increasing numbers of methods of avoiding the Lucas rule.
They often seek to invoke an exception to the Lucas compensation rule: they argue that development of the property
in question is barred by "background principles of property law" (such as the law of nuisance) and thus that no ompensation is required.
The "background principle of property law" being relied on by Seattle is the "public trust
doctrine." According to Seattle and environmental groups across the country, the "public trust
doctrine" prohibits any development that would have a negative impact on rivers, lakes, the ocean, or other waterways.
In this case, Esplanade Properties sought to build single-family homes along the waterfront
in Seattle harbor. Although the area was zoned for single-family homes, Seattle rebuffed all efforts to acquire a construction permit. Seattle officials expressed concern that too much of the tidelands along Seattle harbor had already been developed and that further development would be harmful for the environment. Because of zoning requirements, denial of the request to build residential housing meant that Esplanade could not make any economically productive use of its property.
Esplanade filed suit to recover the lost value of its property, and the Supreme court utimately refused to hear the case.
So much for equitable access to th ecourts.
RH
"In Lingle, the Supreme Court confirmed that whether a government regulation constitutes a taking is determined by the regulation’s effect on private property, not on the purpose for and effectiveness of the regulation."
You will notice that thi is exactly what I said. Whatever benefit the public may get from a regulation,the Costs are determined by its effect on private property.
We can't have any idea what that cost is when the certain activities are simply prohbited, and we certainly cannot guess the costs just based on whatever other activity was allowed.
RH
RH
"Benefit-Cost Analysis is No Help"
http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/06/benefitcost-analysis-is-no-help.html#more
Larry and I have endlessly debated the issue of cost benefit anaylsis and its application to potentially catastrophic outcomes.
I have argued that if willingness to pay for preventing climate change (or any other pollution issue) was infinite, it left no room for other problems such as running out of water, infectious diseases, or nuclear war.\
Larry has argued that uncertainty can easily lead to infinite valuations for preventing global warming and other problems.
The post above and the 46 responses to it give additionla points of view, incase you are tired of larry and I beating this particular dead horse.
RH
From the June 10 Washington Business Journal.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 9:27am EDT
Montgomery County stops residential development in Bethesda, other areas
Washington Business Journal - by Sarah Krouse Staff Reporter
The Montgomery County Planning Board will not approve residential subdivisions in Bethesda, Chevy Chase, Clarksburg and Seneca Valley because of overcrowded schools, the group announced Tuesday.
The moratorium came after the board received results of the annual school test, which compares projected 2014 enrollment figures against classroom capacity in the county’s public schools. The test showed that the number of students enrolled by 2014 was greater than the 120 percent cap set by the Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance.
The development limitations, which only allow for subdivisions of three or fewer units or for retirement communities, were established to avoid putting schools over capacity with enrollment from new housing projects.
Northwest, Northwood, Paint Branch, Quince Orchard, Rockville, Wheaton, Walter Johnson, Whitman and Richard Montgomery were also identified as areas that will be overcrowded by more than 105 percent in 2014. Developers hoping for subdivision approval in those areas will have to pay a fee.
The moratoriums will likely last until next year’s review unless the identified areas can show a projected drop in enrollment or an ability to host more students. School expansions may be considered in the fall and would be funded by Montgomery County’s Capital Improvements Program.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009, 9:27am EDT
Montgomery County stops residential development in Bethesda, other areas, send development and overcrowded school enrollment problems elswhere. 3000 other local jurisdictions acrss the nation follow suit.
RH
Ray -- which landowner(s)should be permitted to develop in the following scenario?
Facts -- Fairfax County's sanitary sewer system is closed to be maxed out. The county actually sends its sewerage to several treatment plants. Studies show that for the Tysons landowners to be able to develop to the level that they desire, it will cost at least $130 million to build additional sewer pipes to bring the sewerage to a number of treatment plants. And that the capacity needed to serve Tysons Corner would exhaust the total capacity of those various treatment plants. Thus, if the county board were to approve Tysons development as requested, it would effectively be required to deny zoning applications in other areas of Fairfax County unless new treatment plants were built.
The county does not have the money to build a new treatment plant. Therefore, it will need to pick winners and losers. How should Fairfax County decide to allocate its limited sanitary sewer capacity among landowners and developers?
I also welcome others' recommendations.
TMT
"The county does not have the money to build a new treatment plant."
The county chooses not to have the money to build a new treatment plant by spending the money on other things they consider to be a higher priority.
Eventually, the county will be required to have all new treatment plants in order to meet the higher standards coming down the pike.
What will the county do then, shut down entirely?
The county should decide how much building it is going to allow, on whatever basis they decide, and is legal. Maybe they decide to allow $X million in development.
Then they should auction off the building rights to the highest bidder. The winner of the auction gets to proceed, providing he can still comply with all the other regulations - setbacks and whatever.
If it develops that he connot proceed for some reason (bankrupcy or onerous regulations) then he, in turn can action off his development rights.
Anyone who is OPPOSED to development is free to bid for the building rights, and then sit on them.
RH
Then they
In this sunday's paper the Governor published a letter. he made five basic points.
1) He has been unable to lead Republicans in the Vriginia legislature out of the Sinai of economic and transportation stupidity.
2) The state has manage to do some things - thanks to Federal money.
3) Most of that money went to rail projects. (Which does nothing for auto tranist. Rail is fine at the job it does, but autos and trucks still do everything else.)
4) Some improvements were made in land use, prompting Loudoun to cancel 20,000 homes due to (unmet) transportation issues. (In other words the savings made from not building roads cost 20,000 homes worth of economic activity. No one thinks that those 20,000 families won't live SOMEWHERE. What will be the traffic considerations of THAT decision? No one knows because it was not part of the state transportaion study that prompeted the cancellation. That, plus an new board of supervisors.)
5. We still need more transportation money. (That we claim we "don't have".)
Fairfax claims the "don't have" the money to meeet their sewage needs. Just like traffic, that sewage is going to go someplace else.
"Saving" infrastructure money by stopping development is an exercise in self deception.
What is really going on here is that various communities are "bidding" against each other, just as I suggested above. Those that can "afford it" bid against development with various regulations to exclude it.
Those that "can't afford" to prevent development because they need the economic activity get stuck with it. At least, the lucky ones do.
RH
RH
RH
I forgot the governors other point.
We have managed some things through public - private initiatives, but hese only work well in heavily travelled areas.
(That's where the most profit from roads is, and presumably the most profit from sewers, too. But what this really means is that Virginia Republicans have been successful in violating the state constituion by implementing a new tax that is not levied equally.)
I'm not sure if th egovernors letter was an admission of failure or a veiled slam at everything Virginia Republicans believe.
RH
Ray - to one extent you are correct. At some price, Fairfax County could pay for a new sewerage treatment plant. Taxes and fees could be raised; bonds might be able to be sold (but Obama seems to be preempting much of the market); or other services, programs or infrastructure investments could be canceled or deferred.
But at a very practical level, "there just isn't any money." Nor is there likely to be much money for some period of time. I've heard these statements made directly from two supervisors -- one a Democrat and the other a Republican. I've also heard the very same thing from Fairfax County's budget director.
I strongly suspect all three of these people would recommend postponing anything that requires a huge capital expenditure. We have a local school in the McLean area that was built in 1955 or 56 and has not yet been remodeled. We have several million dollars worth of spot improvements for our local streets that don't have funding. We are under-served by county parks and open space. I'd say most people would agree that we should not spend the money on a new waste water treatment plant if the result would be to encourage more development.
And what about commerce? Unlike the old days, when a builder would require letters of commitment for 50- or 60% of the floor space before funding could be obtained, we have builders constructing a large number of speculative buildings. There is plenty of empty floor space that can absorb lots of job and business growth.
Real estate development in Fairfax County is generally a losing proposition for existing residents and businesses. We can export some development elsewhere and prosper more.
TMT
"I'd say most people would agree that we should not spend the money on a new waste water treatment plant if the result would be to encourage more development."
You don't think parks and remodeled schools encourage more development?
You build enough parks and schools and pretty soon you need a new sewage treatment plant: providing the jobs are available.
Which job would you rather have?
Pothole patchers and school remodelers, or highrise builders and cubicle inmates?
Like I said, decide how much you are willing to allow built, and then auction the building rights off. Only the best projects will get built, and they should bring in enough to pay for infrastructure.
No doubt you would have speculators bidding for building rights they had no intention of building with, only hoping to sell the last increment need to Tysons developers at a big profit (or to some desperate lot owner).
Or to sit on and prevent Tysons entirely.
If the idea is to just delay until later, as the "no capital money now" argument suggests, then just set the allwed building amounts lower than would permit Tysons.
If Tysons developers are patient and really want to do this, they buy up all the building rights this year and hold them, then next year, and next year, until they have enough.
At that point, they have paid for the rights and no one should still have reason to complain. Unless they are just unreasonable.
Notice, that this is pretty much the same argument that says someone sitting on empty property and paying for infrastructure and services he does not use ought to be entitled to some consideration, when building time does come, other than the claim that he is suddenly, after decades of payments, getting a "windfall profit" by virtue of kindly being "allowed" to build by the powers that be.
RH
Post a Comment